Econ 101 For Dummies

Some stats about the US government:

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Now, remove 8 zeroes and pretend it’s a household budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

Them and Us

Occupy Wall Street Party vs. Tea Party

The Democrats have said that the Occupy Party was their answer to and "just like" the Tea Party.  I report......you decide.......

 

 

REPORTED	OCCUPY PARTY	TEA PARTY
ARRESTS	4149+	0
DEATHS	7	0
RAPES	12	0
ARSON DAMAGE	$10,000,000.00	$0
PUBLIC DEFECATION	YES	NO
ANTISEMITIC RANTS	12	0
COST TO TAXPAYERS (11/9)	$19,327,487..00+	$0
PUBLIC MASTURBATION	3	0
MOLOTOV COCKTAILS THROWN	10	0
FIGHTS STARTED	YES	NO
CHILDREN EXPLOITED	YES	NO
POLICE CARS DAMAGED	2	0
PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS	YES	NO
DRUG POSSESSION ARREST	YES	NO
CONCEALED WEAPON ARREST	YES	NO
DRUG OVERDOSE	YES	NO
THEFTS	YES	NO
BURGLARIES	YES	NO
VANDALISM ARREST	YES	NO
TRESPASSING ARREST	YES	NO
NON FATAL SHOOTINGS	1	0
PUBLIC URINATION	YES	NO
URINATION ON OTHERS	YES	NO
ISRAELI FLAGS BURNED	2	0
AMERICAN FLAGS BURNED	10	0
AMERICAN FLAGS DANCED ON	1	0
AMERICAN FLAGS DESECRATION	25	0
FELONY ASSAULT ON AN EMT	1	0
HEAD/BODY LICE OUTBREAKS	12	0
TUBERCULOSIS OUTBREAKS	1	0
MURDER	1	0
SUICIDE	1	0
SHOTS FIRED AT WHITE HOUSE	1	0
SCABIES OUTBREAKS	1	0
OBAMA ENDORSED	YES	NO
PELOSI ENDORSED	YES	NO
CAIR ENDORSED	YES	NO
SOCIALIST PARTY ENDORSED	YES	NO
NAZI PARTY ENDORSED	YES	NO
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ENDORSED	YES	NO
COMMUNIST PARTY ENDORSED	YES	NO
BIDEN ENDORSED	YES	NO
HUGO CHAVEZ ENDORSED	YES	NO
BLACK PANTHERS ENDORSED	YES	NO
HEZBOLLAH ENDORSED	YES	NO
MARXIST UNION ENDORSED	YES	NO
9/11 TRUTHER ENDORSED	YES	NO
BOLSHEVIK ENDORSED	YES	NO
IRAN GOVERNMENT ENDORSED	YES	NO
AYATOLLAH ENDORSED	YES	NO
NORTH KOREA ENDORSED	YES	NO
FARRAKHAN ENDORSED	YES	NO
NATION OF ISLAM ENDORSED	YES	NO

 

Oh yes, I see the similarities now……..

National Prayer Breakfast

Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, President Obama defended his hard-left positions using Christianity, citing Scripture and personal prayer.   Does that include stomping on religious freedom by mandating that Catholic charities violate the basic tenets of their faith and provide contraceptives?

The president's words reveal how little he understands Christianity, except how he may best use it to his political advantage.  Justifying his healthcare and financial reform laws, he said:

"And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren't discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren't taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense.  But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required."   

Where to begin?

Politically, this is yet another example of a theocratic double standard.  Conservatives who apply religious principles to political reasoning do so out of a dastardly desire to turn America into a theocracy, yet liberals who engage in the same spiritual justification are simply illustrating their moral soundness.

President Obama follows a long tradition of using Christ's words to justify a socialist agenda.
Yet those politicians who have engaged in such rhetoric blatantly misunderstand the words they're repeating.
That distinction lies at the heart of the fallacy Obama has perpetuated. True charity is not a duty of the government.   It's a duty of each of us, as individuals.

Christian morality requires that charity and altruism be voluntary, not coerced. But in societies where socialism or a welfare state prevails, people are forced to be charitable and altruistic by the state. That is accomplished by the government confiscating money from some and giving it to or spending it on others who are deemed to be in need.


 Some condone this by arguing that “the people are the government.” If that is so, then it should logically follow that, just as people are not allowed to steal, even in the name of charity and altruism, then neither should the government be allowed to steal in the name of charity and altruism. Christianity is concerned with what is in a person’s heart, and that can be known only when a person is free to choose and is not coerced.

If the president feels it's his spiritual and moral imperative to give freely of his finances to those who are in need, that is his prerogative.   He has the right to donate whatever percentage of his income to the outlet he sees as best capable of aiding the poor, even if that's the government.  He does not have the right to demand the rest of us do the same, however -- not on spiritual grounds.

If the president truly wants to help those least fortunate, it would be better making the job easier for charities and making it easier for private wealth to be created so individuals have the means to give to charity.   The United States is the most charitable nation on Earth despite high taxes.  And, curiously, conservatives give far more to charity than do liberals,  a phenomenon seen across all social-economic strata.

 President Obama is less interested in charity than he is in consolidating government power.

 Christ never characterized paying taxes to be used to redistribute wealth as a godly act.  Since LBJ's "Great Society" back in the 1960's,  the US Government has transferred about 16 trillion dollars from the taxpayer to the poor... yet the percentage of poor remains about the same.  To overcome poverty, Presidential candidate Rick Santorum stated that one must get an education and wait until marriage to have children.  (I would add, don't do illegal stuff so you can stay out of jail.)   Just these simple but obvious changes in lifestyle would eliminate much of poverty.   I believe in the old axiom:  "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."

Humiliation?

A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of our local newspaper stating my opposition to those on any sort of government assistance (welfare) from being able to profit from playing the lottery (gambling).  My premise was that the money spent (wasted) on playing the lottery actually was the taxpayer's money and any winnings should be forfeited to the State or Federal government from which the money to buy the tickets originated.  This policy would also have the additional benefit or discouraging those who were unable to provide for themselves the destructive and often addictive habit of wasting money playing the lottery.  It would be a simple matter to cross-check lottery winners with welfare receiptients.  Well, I got thoroughly raked over the coals for my efforts and had to endure several weeks of letters of rebuttal stating how insensitive I was and how I hated the poor for not letting them dream of sudden riches.

Now we have in Congress a debate on whether or not welfare recipients will be able to spend "their" money at strip clubs.   On Wednesday, the House voted 395-27 to pass a bill requiring states to block welfare debit cards from being used at casinos, strip clubs, and liquor stores.  Any sane person would see the problem with allowing welfare recipients to withdraw taxpayer money from strip club and casino ATMs. Alas, at least 27 members of Congress do not – despite the fact that California welfare recipients withdrew $1.8 billion from casino ATMs in 2010 (according to the Los Angeles Times).

The opponents' defense… "In many neighborhoods, the closest ATM is located in a nearby liquor store," Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore said when the bill was debated last December. Moore said the bill would "humiliate and marginalize" poor people.   I wonder if these welfare debit cards are used to buy booze, cigarettes, and other non-essential things?   The best intentions often have unintended resuts.